dbr wrote:Jeeeezus, how many times is this board going to witness this exact same argument..

Well the dude does seem to add a new mongoloid to his posse every time it takes place.

I like how he says Hodgson was dealt for a minor leaguer like Kassian is some scrub like Byron Bitz that has kicked around the AHL for years. he neglects to mention that his idol Brian Burke basically shit the bed on the Bure trade and acquired a 5ft 7 runt for Alex Mogilny.

The reality is today's core is Schneider, Hamhuis, Garrison, Bieksa and Edler on the back end. Up front the core is the twins, Kesler and Burrows and potentially Kassian.

We can thank Burke for Kesler , Bieksa and the twins. Cheeseburger Boy brought in Edler and Schneider . Alex Burrows is here because of Craig Heisinger . Nonis had dick all to do with that signing originally, so all he did was offer a new contract to someone in the organization kinda like how Gillis has re-upped all the Burke/Nonis guys.

Topper wrote:How large of a core do you propose and at what point does the core become the periphery?

I'm just looking for some legitimate core type talent to play with Kesler Topper, instead of seeing Space Cadet Booth, Fall Down Raymond and Journeyman Higgins playing with him. He is all by himself on the 2nd line. I feel bad for the cat. We could use core type talent at the 3rd line centre position, sorry but Yappy Lappy and Manny Cyclops do not cut it. We could use more core type talent on D IMHO.

So there you have it, 4 more core type players needed for this team that Gillis seems to really struggle at solving,not too mention the fact that he has been unable to solve our 4th line situation as well.

Why do you cats want to go down on Gillis all the time? This whole man crush thing is crazy.

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

1) how do you pay them? -- we will presumably be close to the cap once the union is crushed.2) who are they? -- you always name needs, but rarely offer soluttions. name some player names for your core additions.

The 'Chain of Command' is the chain I am going to beat you with untill you understand I am in charge.

Topper wrote:How large of a core do you propose and at what point does the core become the periphery?

Well he's got about 12-14 guys that he expects to be part of his core. Third liners, 5th and 6th d-men. All the guys on his revamped 4th line would likely be core guys as well.

In fairness to the dude I agree that Kesler needs at least one better winger than they have provided him with in the recent past. I feel Kassian will be a top 6 player but it may take two seasons to get there.

The reality is today's core is Schneider, Hamhuis, Garrison, Bieksa and Edler on the back end. Up front the core is the twins, Kesler and Burrows and potentially Kassian.

So basically the only changes in core are on the back end since Gillis took over? I agree and think that the back end is weaker than when he came in.. Luongo, Mitchell, Ohlund, Salo,Bieksa and Edler plus rookie Luc Bourdon..

Not much change on the top 6 forwards.. Maybe Booth instead of Samuelsson? Raymond is playing worse .. Higgins is ok but not great ..Kessler coming back off injury .. The only chance of an improvement is Kassian.. With the twins production inevitably declining as they slow down its time for that " BOLD MOVE" Gillis was touting a couple months ago..

RoyalDude wrote:LOL...Higgins my friend is not a core player. If that is what you consider a core player then you have very low standards. He's s fucking journeyman. You do not build around the likes of Higgins.

That's why I only said arguable. It depends on your criteria. Do they have to be "franchise" type players in order for them to be core players? Do they have to have a long-term contract or past seasons playing for the Canucks? Do they have to be a certain age? Play on the top 2 lines/defensive pairings? Gillis called Burrows a core player. Do you disagree? Do you build around a guy like Burrows?

I do use a looser definition of core player. I take into consideration the player's age, role, contract status and history. For me, there's a strong argument that a player is a core player if he has an important role on the team and has a full NTC/NMC. But it really comes down to what that player means to the team. Once Lapierre signs an extension, I too would consider him a core player (the team have tried to built the 4th line around him). I think Malhotra was a core player before he got injured. I don't know what Gillis' plans are as far as Higgins is concerned, but Higgins has been an important forward for the Vancouver Canucks, ranking right behind the Sedins, Burrows, and Kesler in ice time among forwards and if he signs an extension (more than two years) I consider him a core player alongside Hansen if both of them are used in the way they have been used.

RoyalDude wrote:Mitchell was a big loss for this team, IMO. As you could see how important a player like Mitchell could be in the playoffs, with L.A. He was huge for the Kings. Sure would have loved to have had him in the finals against the Bruins.

Between Hamhuis and Mitchell, I pick Hamhuis. Mitchell wasn't going to be part of the Canucks' long term plans. The Canucks needed to get younger, quicker, and healthier. Personally, I feel Bieksa and Hamhuis are a better pairing than Bieksa and Mitchell were.

RoyalDude wrote:Mitchell was a big loss for this team, IMO. As you could see how important a player like Mitchell could be in the playoffs, with L.A. He was huge for the Kings. Sure would have loved to have had him in the finals against the Bruins.

Between Hamhuis and Mitchell, I pick Hamhuis. Mitchell wasn't going to be part of the Canucks' long term plans. The Canucks needed to get younger, quicker, and healthier. Personally, I feel Bieksa and Hamhuis are a better pairing than Bieksa and Mitchell were.

No kidding, but it wasn't between Mitchell & Hamhuis, it was between a 1 or 2 yr deal. Willie wanted 2 and Gillis wouldn't budge off 1. Mitchell deserved 2 and could have been the difference in the Cup run that year. The D core was never the same after he left, we didn't have that defensive type back there who could play tough, block shots etc. Instead we got Rome/Alberts/Tanev etc. Why did we need to get "younger"? Mitchell can *still* play as far as I'm concerned. Bieksa & Hamhuis could have been a pair and Mitchell would have been the no.5.

Last edited by ClamRussel on Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.